High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohd. Wajid Irfan for caveator - respondent No.4, who is the main contesting party while opposite party No.s 5,6,7 and 8 are proforma parties. Sri Mohan Singh appears on behalf of respondent No.9.

2.The counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 4 is taken on record.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya whereby the revision filed by opposite party No.4 has been allowed and he has maintained the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer on 30.8.1998.

4. The facts in brief as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application for mutation was moved on 6.6.1997 before Consolidation Officer by opposite party No.4 on the basis of a sale deed dated 20.5.1997 which was allowed vide order 30.8.1998 and appropriate orders for mutation was passed. After lapse of more than 16 years appeals were filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.8.1998. It was canvassed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the consolidation operations had concluded on 5.4.1997 by issuance of notification under Section 52 and the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in excess of his jurisdiction ignoring the order of notification under Section 52 on 5.4.1997. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation interfered with the order of the consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for consideration afresh after taking into account all the relevant facts vide order dated 8.2.2019.

5. Opposite party No.4 being aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 8.2.2019 preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18.1.2020 and immediate thereafter on 24.2.2021 moved application for withdrawal of the revision and his application was allowed on the same day i.e. 24.2.2021. Despite withdrawal of the aforesaid revision he proceeded to file yet another revision on 27.2.2023 concealing the factum of filing previous revision and it is for the aforesaid reasons that Deputy Direct of Consolidation has passed the impugned order dated 22.5.2025 allowing the said revision and setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

6. Considering on merits of the case the Deputy Director of Consolidation after examining the records was of the view that notification under Section 52 of C.H. Act was, in fact, passed on 14.6.1997 as noticed by the Consolidation Officer and accordingly, the finding in this regard were wrongly noticed by the authorities below and in case notification under Section 52 was passed on 14.6.1997 while the sale deed was, in fact, executed prior to passing of the notification and accordingly he was of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of Consolidation Officer and accordingly while allowing the the revision restored the order of Consolidation Officer.

7. Assailing the order dated 22.5.2025 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second revision is not maintainable and undoubtedly the opposite party has concealed this fact while filing the second revision. He further submits that in the objections filed by the petitioner this ground was taken but despite specifically taking this ground the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not correctly appreciated the said facts and only rejected the objections of the petitioner recording the fact that any application made without the authority of the client, cannot be considered and without appreciating the objections raised rejected the objection of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the order dated 24.2.2021. In the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation it has clearly been recorded that the application was filed at the behest of opposite party No.4 himself and gazette notification was enclosed along with the said application and accordingly it was stated that on facts the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse and illegal and on its own pleaded the case of opposite party No.4 that the application for withdrawal was unauthorized. He submits that in any view of the matter, the matter had stood remanded by the order dated 8.2.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation leaving it open to the Consolidation Officer to consider all the facts afresh and hence, there was no infirmity in the said order and, therefore, prayed that in the remand proceedings which is pending before Consolidation Officer may be considered and decided with expedition.

9. Sri Mohd. Wajid Irfan, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.4 has opposed the writ petition but he does not dispute the aforesaid fact that the prevision revison was filed by opposite party No.4 immediately followed by application for withdrawal. He further does not dispute the fact that no liberty was sought for filing another revision. Accordingly, he after arguing the matter at length does not dispute aforesaid facts but made a prayer that in light of the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer may proceed with the remand proceedings but prayed for early disposal of the same.

10. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

11. From the facts as discussed above, it is abundantly clear that opposite party No.4 had filed a revision on the first occasion on 18.9.2020 and had withdrawn the said revision without seeking any prayer for filing a fresh revision. In absence of seeking any liberty once a revision was withdrawn there is no right vested in him to file second revision assailing the same order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is no dispute that second revision assailing the same order was not maintainable and hence the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are clearly illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Relying upon the judgment of this Court stating that any application made by a counsel without permission of the client would be nullity is not an aspect which relates the facts of the present case.

12. A perusal of the order dated 14.2.2021 would clearly indicate that opposite party No.4 was present in the court and the application was filed for withdrawal duly annexing his Adhar Card. Even the order itself records that the parties were present in the court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that withdrawal of the revision was unauthorized by opposite party No.4 and accordingly, the findings in this regard recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse, illegal and arbitrary. It is for the aforesaid reasons that the order impugned passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and is accordingly set aside.

13. Considering the fact that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, we allow this petition with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order with expedition say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him in accordance with law.

14. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohd. Wajid Irfan for caveator - respondent No.4, who is the main contesting party while opposite party No.s 5,6,7 and 8 are proforma parties. Sri Mohan Singh appears on behalf of respondent No.9.

2.The counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 4 is taken on record.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya whereby the revision filed by opposite party No.4 has been allowed and he has maintained the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer on 30.8.1998.

4. The facts in brief as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application for mutation was moved on 6.6.1997 before Consolidation Officer by opposite party No.4 on the basis of a sale deed dated 20.5.1997 which was allowed vide order 30.8.1998 and appropriate orders for mutation was passed. After lapse of more than 16 years appeals were filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.8.1998. It was canvassed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the consolidation operations had concluded on 5.4.1997 by issuance of notification under Section 52 and the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in excess of his jurisdiction ignoring the order of notification under Section 52 on 5.4.1997. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation interfered with the order of the consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for consideration afresh after taking into account all the relevant facts vide order dated 8.2.2019.

5. Opposite party No.4 being aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 8.2.2019 preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18.1.2020 and immediate thereafter on 24.2.2021 moved application for withdrawal of the revision and his application was allowed on the same day i.e. 24.2.2021. Despite withdrawal of the aforesaid revision he proceeded to file yet another revision on 27.2.2023 concealing the factum of filing previous revision and it is for the aforesaid reasons that Deputy Direct of Consolidation has passed the impugned order dated 22.5.2025 allowing the said revision and setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

6. Considering on merits of the case the Deputy Director of Consolidation after examining the records was of the view that notification under Section 52 of C.H. Act was, in fact, passed on 14.6.1997 as noticed by the Consolidation Officer and accordingly, the finding in this regard were wrongly noticed by the authorities below and in case notification under Section 52 was passed on 14.6.1997 while the sale deed was, in fact, executed prior to passing of the notification and accordingly he was of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of Consolidation Officer and accordingly while allowing the the revision restored the order of Consolidation Officer.

7. Assailing the order dated 22.5.2025 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second revision is not maintainable and undoubtedly the opposite party has concealed this fact while filing the second revision. He further submits that in the objections filed by the petitioner this ground was taken but despite specifically taking this ground the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not correctly appreciated the said facts and only rejected the objections of the petitioner recording the fact that any application made without the authority of the client, cannot be considered and without appreciating the objections raised rejected the objection of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the order dated 24.2.2021. In the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation it has clearly been recorded that the application was filed at the behest of opposite party No.4 himself and gazette notification was enclosed along with the said application and accordingly it was stated that on facts the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse and illegal and on its own pleaded the case of opposite party No.4 that the application for withdrawal was unauthorized. He submits that in any view of the matter, the matter had stood remanded by the order dated 8.2.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation leaving it open to the Consolidation Officer to consider all the facts afresh and hence, there was no infirmity in the said order and, therefore, prayed that in the remand proceedings which is pending before Consolidation Officer may be considered and decided with expedition.

9. Sri Mohd. Wajid Irfan, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.4 has opposed the writ petition but he does not dispute the aforesaid fact that the prevision revison was filed by opposite party No.4 immediately followed by application for withdrawal. He further does not dispute the fact that no liberty was sought for filing another revision. Accordingly, he after arguing the matter at length does not dispute aforesaid facts but made a prayer that in light of the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer may proceed with the remand proceedings but prayed for early disposal of the same.

10. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

11. From the facts as discussed above, it is abundantly clear that opposite party No.4 had filed a revision on the first occasion on 18.9.2020 and had withdrawn the said revision without seeking any prayer for filing a fresh revision. In absence of seeking any liberty once a revision was withdrawn there is no right vested in him to file second revision assailing the same order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is no dispute that second revision assailing the same order was not maintainable and hence the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are clearly illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Relying upon the judgment of this Court stating that any application made by a counsel without permission of the client would be nullity is not an aspect which relates the facts of the present case.

12. A perusal of the order dated 14.2.2021 would clearly indicate that opposite party No.4 was present in the court and the application was filed for withdrawal duly annexing his Adhar Card. Even the order itself records that the parties were present in the court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that withdrawal of the revision was unauthorized by opposite party No.4 and accordingly, the findings in this regard recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse, illegal and arbitrary. It is for the aforesaid reasons that the order impugned passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and is accordingly set aside.

13. Considering the fact that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, we allow this petition with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order with expedition say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him in accordance with law.

14. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench